The Israeli-Palestinian conflict is still a priority for Obama: Given that the focus of this speech was billed as the changes in the Middle East and North Africa, many predicted that the President would say little about the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. They were proven wrong. Fully 20% of the speech was devoted to the issue, making clear that President Obama recognizes the importance of the issue.

Linkage is U.S. policy: With this speech President Obama has made clear that he sees a direct connection between the absence of Israeli-Palestinian peace and what goes on in the region. In rejecting the "there is no linkage" orthodoxy, Obama is agreeing with many of his top advisors (see here, here, and here). President Obama's decision to devote 20% of a speech to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict clearly reflected a recognition of the fact that for peoples in the Middle East and North Africa, what he has to say on this issue is at least as important to them as what he has to say about all the other issues. Moreover, the "around-the-region-tour" in Obama's speech ended up on the Israeli-Palestinian conflict - reflecting the clear logic that the regional developments and the conflict cannot be de-linked. President Obama made this explicit, noting that "For decades, the conflict between Israelis and Arabs has cast a shadow over the region." He went on to note that "this conflict has come with a larger cost to the Middle East, as it impedes partnerships that could bring greater security and prosperity and empowerment to ordinary people."

In addition to the important - and positive - things the president said, the speech contained some significant - and very positive - omissions.

Borders/Settlements: President Obama did not adopt the Bush formula (as expressed in Bush's 2004 letter to then-Prime Minister Ariel Sharon) on borders and settlements - much to the dismay of many pundits on the right (like the RJC).

Why do they care, given that both Bush and Obama talked about an agreement based on 1967 lines with land swaps? Because in the Bush formulation, the starting point was the implicit adoption of a hard-line Israeli position - that Israel will retain control of "already existing major Israeli populations," more commonly known as "settlement blocs." Bush's formula suggested that the results of negotiations - with respect to how much and what land Israel would keep - were a foregone conclusion; the only thing left to negotiate were the land swaps that the Palestinians would be forced to accept in return.

In contrast, Obama's formulation did not present the outcome of negotiations, for either side, as a foregone conclusion. He simply laid out a principle. From this principle it follows that Israel and the Palestinians will have to negotiate changes in the 1967 lines (which include East Jerusalem), on the basis of mutually agreed on land swaps. The outcome of such negotiations remains unknown, and both sides - not just the Palestinians - will have to make hard choices.

Some observers (like Haaretz's Aluf Benn) noted another settlement-related omission in the speech: Obama didn't explicitly re-articulate the view that settlements are illegitimate. But Obama likewise said nothing to imply any change in the U.S. policy opposing settlements, and his one reference to settlements was telling: he juxtaposed "Israeli settlement activity continues" with the observation that "Palestinians have walked away from talks," in a clear criticism of both (and implying a causal relationship between the two). Taken together with the president's clear articulation of U.S. policy on borders and land swaps, and non-embrace of the Bush formula, the result is a much stronger, not weaker, U.S. position opposing settlements construction.

Unity Government: Getting the Obama Administration to make it unequivocal U.S. policy to boycott, sanction, and refuse to in any way deal with any Palestinian power-sharing government that includes Hamas, unless and until Hamas meets the Quartet Conditions, is a top priority of some on the American Jewish right. Likewise, they want Obama to suspend all aid to the Palestinians immediately (ostensibly until we see what will come out of this unity government effort, but more likely to punish the Palestinians for engaging in this unity effort in the first place).*

President Obama pointedly didn't adopt any of these positions in his speech. What he said was: "How can one negotiate with a party that has shown itself unwilling to recognize your right to exist? And in the weeks and months to come, Palestinian leaders will have to provide a credible answer to that question..." This statement, like the actual law (which states that the unity government and its ministers - not the Hamas party - have to meet the Quartet conditions), represents a far more measured, pragmatic approach.

Palestinian Recognition: Getting the Obama Administration to state unequivocally that it is U.S. policy to oppose Palestinian efforts to gain recognition from countries around the world and at the United Nations in September 2011 - and to declare that the U.S. will impose harsh consequences on the Palestinians if they continue down this road - is another top priority of some on the American Jewish right. Likewise, they want President Obama to commit to twisting the arms of other members of the international community to get them to toe this American line and they want him to publicly commit, in advance, to vetoing any UN action in September on this matter.

Here, again, all of their wishes went unfulfilled. President Obama did touch on the issue of action at the UN, observing simply that "symbolic actions to isolate Israel at the United Nations in September won't create an independent state" (a statement that will anger both those who consider UN action a potential positive game-changer and those who consider it a huge threat to Israel). This is a far cry from threatening the Palestinians with consequences for their current efforts, demonizing them for this effort, calling on the international community to toe a specific U.S. line, or promising a U.S. veto.

-------------------

*We know this because we have seen these things demanded in Congressional letters (supported by groups like AIPAC), in congressional resolutions (here and here, that will be heavily lobbied by AIPAC), and in policy statements (issued by groups like AIPAC).